Santosh Ramprasad Pandey v. Kaushik More And ORS.

crpilst20 ssp

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELATE JURISDICTION PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION ST.NO.20 OF 2015 Santosh Ramprasad Pandey

...Petitioner

vs.

Kaushik More and others

...Respondents

None for the Petitioner Mr.Jagdish G. Reddy (Aradwad) for the respondent No.3 Dr.F.R.Shaikh, APP for State CORAM : A.S.OKA, & A.A.SAYED, JJ.

DATE : JUNE 8, 2016 P.C.:

None appeared for the petitioner in the morning session. Even in the afternoon session none appears for the petitioner. We find that on 26th June 2015, none appeared for the petitioner. The petitioner claims to be a RTI activist. His contention is that the Secretary of the Slum Rehabilitation Authority committed an error by holding that the respondent Nos.5 to 31 are eligible for allotment of rehabilitation tenements in a Slum Redevelopment Scheme under 33 (10) of the Development Control Regulations.

The contention raised by the petitioner is that the documents produced by the respondent Nos.5 to 31 were bogus. We find that the grievance of the petitioner is about the finding on the eligibility of certain individuals. The finding is based on examination of the documents by the

crpilst20 Appellate Authority.

We are of the view that this is not a fit case to entertain this PIL. We, however, make it clear that we have made no adjudication on the issue of legality and validity of the order of the Appellate Authority holding the concerned persons eligible. Subject to what is observed above, we decline to entertain this PIL and the same is rejected. (A.A.SAYED,J.) (A.S.OKA,J.)